Baseball Toaster Dodger Thoughts
Jon Weisman's outlet
for dealing psychologically
with the Los Angeles Dodgers
and baseball.
Frozen Toast
Google Search
Dodger Thoughts

02  01 

12  11  10  09  08  07 
06  05  04  03  02  01 

12  11  10  09  08  07 
06  05  04  03  02  01 

12  11  10  09  08  07 
06  05  04  03  02  01 

12  11  10  09  08  07 
06  05  04  03  02  01 

12  11  10  09  08  07 
06  05  04  03  02  01 

12  11  10  09  08  07 
06  05  04  03  02  01 

09  08  07 
About Jon
Thank You For Not ...

1) using profanity or any euphemisms for profanity
2) personally attacking other commenters
3) baiting other commenters
4) arguing for the sake of arguing
5) discussing politics
6) using hyperbole when something less will suffice
7) using sarcasm in a way that can be misinterpreted negatively
8) making the same point over and over again
9) typing "no-hitter" or "perfect game" to describe either in progress
10) being annoyed by the existence of this list
11) commenting under the obvious influence
12) claiming your opinion isn't allowed when it's just being disagreed with

Deadline Dogma
2006-07-25 10:00
by Jon Weisman

If you believe the Dodgers are a playoff contender, is there any trade you would make that you wouldn't make if you didn't believe?

Most people seem to think the team's probability of winning affects (or should affect) decisions. For the most part, I disagree. Five games up or five games out, I think I'd have essentially the same approach.

If I thought a huge short-term boost would make a difference, the standings wouldn't change that. If I weren't worried about reaching .500, I'd be worried about winning the division. If I weren't worried about winning the division, I'd be worried about winning the World Series. If I weren't worried about winning the World Series ...

Sorry - got lost in the Land of Chocolate for the moment.

Too much is made of the long-term vs. the short term. What's right is right for both. If it isn't worth trading a prospect for two months of a major leaguer when your team is at or below .500, it isn't worth doing at or below .600.

Okay, there might be an exception here and there, but I think it's a pretty good rule.

Comments (130)
Show/Hide Comments 1-50
2006-07-25 10:08:58
1.   Bob Timmermann
All baseball trades should be vetted by Jim Cramer. It would be more interesting at least than having to listen to Jim Bowden's dissembling.
2006-07-25 10:13:48
2.   Blu2
True. You can never quit upgrading. Anytime you can replace one of your players with a better one, you have to do it. But always look at all the aspects; Example: Would you trade Lofton for Barry Bonds? Bonds is the better player even now but.....
2006-07-25 10:15:58
3.   Jon Weisman
2 - That seems a particularly bizarre example, but it's safe to say that the current standings wouldn't affect my opinion of that trade. That's the only point I'm trying to make.
2006-07-25 10:16:10
4.   Sam DC
2 You are the Captain of the Kobayashi Maru . . .
2006-07-25 10:16:39
5.   the OZ
Another question to consider, especially in light of Jon's recent post about an article featuring the McCourts, is their fortitude for player transactions that many in the mainstream would label as the "sell" type.

If the Gang of Four thought that a trade of "star" or "familiar" Dodgers like Nomar, Kent, or Izturis would be a net positive for the organization, would the McCourts allow it?

2006-07-25 10:21:13
6.   dzzrtRatt
Somebody was pouring tar into my shower stall while I was working on this post in the last thread, so I'll repost it here because it works with Jon's theme:

70 It's not that anyone believes, empirically, that the season is over. It's because some of us want it to be over. If we can't be as good as the best team, this thinking goes, we might as well go into full rebuild mode. The veterans are...old. So they've gotta go.

My response is: We've got a rookie right fielder, a rookie catcher, a rookie in our starting rotation, and a rookie high on the bullpen depth chart. The glass is more than half-full! Ethier, Martin, Billingsley and Broxton are ready for prime time. The others, with one possible exception, are not.

If Matt Kemp hadn't gone into a damaging slump, he'd be playing centerfield most games, right now, and Lofton would be trade bait. I guarantee that neither Colletti nor Little are dumb enough to start Lofton over Kemp if they didn't think Kemp needed more work in the minors. To have him "work out his problems" swinging and missing major league curveballs for the next two months would be malpractice.

Likewise, the comment someone made about Aybar's poor footwork at second base. Just "leave him out there?" That's ignorant. Derek Lowe and Brad Penny are trying to win major league ballgames. What could be worse for Aybar's development and confidence than to subject him to the scorn of competitive major league pitchers for blowing their win opportunities with klutzy fielding?

If you think Aybar has a future with the Dodgers, you want him back in AAA as soon as Kent returns. You can "leave him out there" in Vegas every day, and he will probably learn something. In LA, all he'll "learn" is that he has no business wearing a major league uniform. You might think that's investing in the future, but it's actually killing the future.

I think a case could be made for Loney, but an equally strong case can be made that he's better off building his confidence in Vegas, coming into Spring Training next year with a sense that he belongs. By Spring Training, we'll also have Nomar's role worked out -- third baseman, ex-Dodger or whatever. You can't really argue that our best offensive player, who has a one-year contract, is "blocking" Loney in 2006. A GM who thought that way would be sharkbait.

I like the sabermetric thinking around here, but it seems to be abandoned in favor of "who's to say?" thinking when it comes to the prospects. Everyone who is excited about the Dodgers' future prospects ought to calm the *$&%^ down. Going into this season, no one was predicting much more than Billingsley and Broxton for 2006. We're already ahead of schedule. Relax!

2006-07-25 10:21:42
7.   Jon Weisman
5 - I feel like the Gagne lesson might be pretty powerful - that you can't depend on the face of the team not to change, whether you like it or not.

Beyond that, I don't think Kent and Izturis would be viewed as the face. Nomar, maybe, though he's hardly on the Gagne level.

2006-07-25 10:24:04
8.   Blu2
3 You wouldn't trade for Barry even if you thought his bat would make up our deficit and get us into the WS?

5 They would trade God if it got them some good publicity///

2006-07-25 10:26:01
9.   Jon Weisman
8 - You're truly missing my point.
2006-07-25 10:27:35
10.   Mark
2006-07-25 10:30:01
11.   MartinBillingsley31
I'm in addition by subtraction mode.
Which doesn't cost prospects and gives prospects valuable MLB at bats/innings by opening up roster spots for promotions.
It also may add a decent prospect or 2 to the system.
By the way the prospects promoted might produce better than the mediocre veteran subtracted (i.e. izturis, lofton).

What mode i'm not in is trading productive veterans (i.e penny, lowe, kent, drew, saito).

2006-07-25 10:30:38
12.   still bevens
7 I really feel like the McCourts obsession with wanting to be loved by the public would prevent them from unloading someone like a Nomar, Drew or Kent, unless it involved them trading up for someone even more 'popular.' Trading one of the above for a bunch of plus prospects is something I doubt the McCourts are capable of.
2006-07-25 10:34:55
13.   Blu2
9 I may well be, you're in a better position to know than I am.
2006-07-25 10:36:20
14.   Bob Timmermann
I don't see why the Dodgers ever had to abandon their time-honored strategy of winning the division by getting a career year out of one player, just enough starting pitching, a good bullpen combined with horrible pitching by the Giants, horrible pitching by the Padres, the Rockies being the Rockies, and Arizona losing 111 games.

I think the Dodgers have lost sight of those ideals. If they can build a team with that plan in mind, they will succeed.

It's time to get Al Pedrique back on the job in Arizona.

2006-07-25 10:47:22
15.   Greg S
that you can't depend on the face of the team not to change, whether you like it or not.
Wait, I'm still doing the math of that sentence... I'm confused! =)
2006-07-25 10:49:22
16.   Jon Weisman
13 - It's just that if I wanted to trade Lofton for Bonds, it wouldn't matter what place the team was in. So "even if you thought his bat would make up our deficit and get us into the WS?" doesn't apply.
2006-07-25 10:53:08
17.   Greg S
Jon, I think I would agree with your point most of the time (and you used the word "most" as well). If it's a good move, it's a good move. I guess the only real exception would be a Zito type situation where your future and your present are at odds and you could still win but make a current sacrafice for your future health. I don't think the Dodgers live in that type of world.
2006-07-25 10:57:30
18.   Jon Weisman
17 - Zito's a good test.

If you're 48-52, five games out, do you get him?

If you're 52-48 and tied for first, do you get him?

If you're 57-43 and up by five games, do you get him?

Why would your answers to these questions be different? (Sincere question, not rhetorical)

2006-07-25 11:01:05
19.   JoeyP
I think this is simple:

Trade all the vets on 1-year contracts that the club has no intention of offering arbitration to for next season.

Lofton, Saito, Ledee, Cruz, Saenz, Hall, Baez, Beimel should all be on the table.

The Dodgers would be absolutely nuts if they didnt trade Saito. He's at the top of his value, and his value is much greater to a contender than the Dodgers.

2006-07-25 11:04:29
20.   JoeyP
18. No, No, Yes.

I'd only want 2 months of Barry Zito if it added to an already WS caliber club.
Trading prospects for Barry Zito, when the team has no shot at winning the WS, would be stupid. Why not keep the prospects, and just sign Zito in the off-season if that were the case?

2006-07-25 11:09:06
21.   Paul Scott
The post season is too random. I believe in taking advantage of team's desiring to "fill some holes" for the post season, as I think you can take greater advantage of GM's overvaluing a player for supposed short-term gains. I don't want to see the Dodgers doing that, however. Especially since Midusa makes "deadline-esque" moves starting in Novemeber. I am terrified to see what he is willing to give up to fill some hole, especially since he may consider the bullpen (a "hole" I would never try and fill by trades under any circumstances) one such hole.
2006-07-25 11:09:41
22.   bluetahoe
I've finally got a HUGE dose of the negative nellies. This tailspin has been MIGHTY disappointing. I've recently come to realize there are things much more important than Dodgers baseball, baseball, or any other sport in general. It's just a silly game.

That being said I will still follow the Dodgers very closely, just not as closely as years past. Watching Izzy, Drew, Aybar, and Cruz bat makes me ill. They give me the hateful harry's. They can all be DFA'd for all I care.

2006-07-25 11:09:53
23.   Dodger Blue Notes
18 - If the Dodgers were 57-43 and acquiring Zito made them World Series contenders than I would be fine with giving up some prospects in order to make a run at the Series.

Acquiring Zito to squeak out a division title in the weak NL West while giving up some prospects doesnt make sense to me.

The reality is the team has too many flaws right now and picking up a rental will not fix anything (other than making the press happy).

2006-07-25 11:11:21
24.   Sushirabbit
18 I think you're right. I'd say "no" to all scenarios, based just on the fact that it is Zito, but let us say we all believed in the myth of Zito. And we knew he was worth another 10+ games. At those numbers I think you would have to say "Yes" all other things being equal. Just like when you have a plan as a GM it will probably include players and positions that you want to exclude from trading away (or for) you have a plan for what you need - and that doesn't change with the amount of games back or in front your team is.

On the other hand, I can see the progress (or regress) in midseason changing your valuations of players/positions and what you need get in order to improve the team.

Not that I think either the plan is happening or a realization that valuations were erroneous... just I like to imagine the GM is capable of such.

2006-07-25 11:14:33
25.   JoeyP
Wasnt Tahoe like 3 weeks ago saying "I LOVE THIS TEAM"????

Now, he's giving up baseball?

Well, that was quick.

2006-07-25 11:14:49
26.   Humma Kavula
22 Say it ain't so, blue!
2006-07-25 11:17:15
27.   Humma Kavula
Well, I still love this team -- especially the rookies and the promise for the future.

As in every relationship, there's things that annoy about the other. For instance, I could do without the inability to drive in men on base. It hurts me that they won't do that for me. For us.

I guess you always hurt the one you love.

2006-07-25 11:18:25
28.   tjshere

It scares me that you've just figured out that in the overall scheme of things baseball isn't that important.

2006-07-25 11:22:39
29.   ToyCannon
I don't think Depo had to pass his player acquisitions past McCourt and I don't believe Ned does either other then the salary component.

I completely disagree with Jon on his header column. There are trades I would make in last place that I wouldn't consider if I were in 1st place and visa versa. For example if we were in 1st place I would not consider trading JD Drew, however at this moment if Detroit offered me Humberto Sanchez and Will Ledezma the same package they offered the Nat's for Soriano I'd take it. It would free 11 million this winter for better use and give us another solid pitching prospect and someone who might be able to help in the rotation today. This trade would hurt the team short term but would help the team long term. Anyway to me there are hundreds of scenarios like the one I describe and I don't see how you can't look at your current situation when deciding what to look for, whether it be immediate or long term help.

Here is a small snippet from the BA article today written by Tony Jackson on how the Dodger youth movement came early.

"The Dodgers acquired Ethier, who had never played in the big leagues, from the Athletics last December for Milton Bradley and Antonio Perez, two players the Dodgers knew were spare parts. Colletti apparently mentioned during the Winter Meetings that Oakland was willing to part with Ethier, and as the story goes, longtime Dodgers scout Al LaMacchia immediately perked up and said, "You have a chance to get Ethier? Get him

2006-07-25 11:22:55
30.   bluetahoe
My father nearly died of a heart attack the Sunday before the all star break. It kind of puts things into perspective.


Who said I'm giving up baseball, JoeyP? Do you even take the time read others posts?

2006-07-25 11:26:54
31.   Bob Timmermann
I hope your father is recovering.
2006-07-25 11:30:19
32.   ToyCannon
Take your Elavil and relax. By the end of next week Cruz won't be batting LH anymore, Izzy will be doing his fungo act elsewhere, JD will either be on the DL or will be in a full blown Vlady July breakout and Aybar will who knows.
2006-07-25 11:31:11
33.   Jon Weisman
30/31 - Me too, Bluetahoe. And in light of everything, I hope everyone drops the argument that seemed to come out of 22.
2006-07-25 11:31:31
34.   ToyCannon
Scatch 32, my hopes that your father recovers. Yes, baseball is just a game compared to life.
2006-07-25 11:32:34
35.   Sam DC
Best wishes to you and your family, Bluetahoe.
2006-07-25 11:33:22
36.   Bluebleeder87

my father passed away about a year ago, so I think that puts things in perspective for me.

2006-07-25 11:33:39
37.   Greg S
18. Your question is an interesting one but my point was more on the A's side. The same question but "would the A's deall him?" given those records. To answer your question, I think I would agree that my answer is the same no matter the record. (Of course I can't give that answer without knowing the offer)
2006-07-25 11:34:16
38.   Bluebleeder87
bluetahoe, you don't post as much anymore do you?
2006-07-25 11:34:56
39.   Sushirabbit
24, re 18

I think 24 was maybe not as clear as I'd like. I'm fairly certain that "those in charge" realize another outfielder and an ace or two pitchers are high on the need list, while First Base and Shortstop are on the have enough list. Those things don't change trades you'd make or make right now.

In regards to Zito, I do think that money+long term commitment do matter in mid-season trades. So 20 and 23 are good points that I basically agree with.

One other thing that I think bears on this. You can't always look at players and say "this is what's going to happen as a worst case scenario, and that looks imminent" because that's when Pedro Martinez and Paul Konerko (etc, etc) trades happen. There is always a risk that a player will get hurt. There is also always a chance that a player will get better or worse based on some mechanical issue that coaches see or think they see. For the most part, I doubt anybody here has a clear handle on how the Dodger organization judges the injury risk, or the potential change they see in certain players.

2006-07-25 11:35:07
40.   JJoeScott
If you're 48-52, five games out, do you get him? No, I think you look inside for help, or consider what spare parts you have that can get you closer to winning next year.

If you're 52-48 and tied for first, do you get him? I think you need to stay the course, and keep seasoning those rookies who have gotten you there. However, you can't move the spare parts at this point while you're in the race.

If you're 57-43 and up by five games, do you get him? NOW I'm thinking about it. The playoffs are not a certainty every year, so you need to grab the opportunity while you can. I think you look closely at where you project your lineup, roster and budget to be over the next 3-4 seasons, address what spare prospects you can part with, and try and make a deal.

2006-07-25 11:35:24
41.   JoeyP
32. Who do you see playing 3rd by the end of next week?
2006-07-25 11:35:35
42.   Sam DC
And if you're looking for a little mid-afternoon diversion, the comments on The Griddle's Harold Reynolds are, um, er, witty and wry. Well worth checking out.
2006-07-25 11:36:46
43.   Sam DC
42 Of course, you all in California will have to wait several hours before you can consider it a mid-afternoon diversion.
2006-07-25 11:39:31
44.   Bob Timmermann
The Dodgers won't be using a third baseman as Grady Little is switching the Dodgers to a 3-4 defense.
2006-07-25 11:40:24
45.   Jon Weisman
29 - I think you're talking about a difference in extremes that would qualify under my "exceptions." Yes, being in true last place (as opposed to last place but only 5 games out of first) would make a difference.

But a) that's really just one scenario, no matter how many hypothetical trades you can think of making within it, and b) if you're in true last place, you probably don't have very many J.D. Drews to deal - players that would yield bigtime prospects.

Certainly, I'm not advising not to "look at your current situation." What I'm saying is that in most cases, your needs will be the same.

2006-07-25 11:41:08
46.   thinkblue0
can someone inform me as to why Harold Reynolds was handed his walking papers?
2006-07-25 11:41:11
47.   Xeifrank
if your goal (as a GM) is to put your team in a chance to win championships year after year after year and you don't have the "very" deep pockets of the NY Yankees then I'd say it does matter how you approach being a "buyer" or a "seller". Should the KC Royals be trading prospects for two months of Alfonso Soriano? Sure, it would help their team win a few more games but at what cost. I think there is a huge difference between the last place Royals and the first place Padres in the way they approach the trade deadline. The goal is to win championships... this year and in future years. The Royals are dead for this year and the Padres are not. Therefore the different approach. The Dodgers...? Probably too early to say we are out of it for this year. If we get swept by the Padres, then yeah things will be pretty bleak. If the Dodgers continue to slide as the trade deadline approaches then they should probably be open to any offers that may help them next year and in years beyond. Trading Juan Guzman or James Loney for 2 months of Alfonso Soriano would be a huge waste. To me this is just common sense and nothing new. vr, Xei
2006-07-25 11:43:38
48.   Jon Weisman
I guess my question is, if you were good enough to be 57-43 without Zito, why do you need him?

Realizing that we don't know the composition of this hypothetical 57-43 team and why it's winning, one could argue that the better you are, the less of a difference maker he can be - and therefore, the lower return on investment you get on trading your prospects.

2006-07-25 11:43:43
49.   JJoeScott
41 - I think Izzy is staying at 3B for the foreseeable future (unless Kent is out for the season). The Dodgers cannot get a "full value" trading partner for a GG-winning, young shortstop if they trade him now. And as someone pointed out on a different DT post, he was on the upswing offensively until his injury.

I would be waiting until the off-season as teams start building their '07 teams and can see penciling in Izzy as their everyday SS, and likewise the Dodgers can receive someone who helps them long-term. (The Orioles come to mind as a team that may need a SS next year.)

Spare parts like Cruz Jr. (a good OF half-platoon) and even Saenz (DH platoon) are guys I'm looking to move now.

2006-07-25 11:45:07
50.   Sushirabbit
Steve Treder has an interesting look back at trades over at the Hard Ball Times.
Show/Hide Comments 51-100
2006-07-25 11:46:27
51.   JJoeScott
48 - You trade for Zito because he is better than whoever is penciled in to start game two of the NLDS for you, and you hope that the fact the Mets/Cards haven't seen much of him gives you an advantage.
2006-07-25 11:46:49
52.   JoeyP
It matters how that 57-43 record was achieved. Look at the 2004 Dodgers. I think everyone knew they 'needed' Brad Penny, when looking at their starting pitching staff.
2006-07-25 11:47:08
53.   Dodger Blue Notes
Another issue to consider is what Colletti has done in his trades with Tampa Bay that have hurt our short term goals.

By trading for $9MM (estimate) in players salary (Baez, Carter, Hendrickson and Hall) makes it more difficult to take on a high priced rental to help in the short term.

I am not even mentioning the fact that we havent received equal value for the players we dealt (at the time we dealt them).

2006-07-25 11:48:07
54.   Xeifrank
48. You are correct, you need to know the composition of the team before answering your question about the Zito hypothetical.
vr, Xei
2006-07-25 11:48:45
55.   bluetahoe
I advocate we trade Izzy to Toronto for that mid level prospect. If LaRoche is healthy I call him to play 3rd. If he's not healthy I guess I go with Aybie at 3rd....reluctantly.

I've got a sly plan for JD that accomplishes 2 things. We trade him to the Yanks for a mid level prospect. What does this accomplish?

1) Frees up 33 million over the next 3 seasons to get somebody that's a consistent offensive threat.

2) Revenge. The Dodgers used to be a 87+ win team before JD came along. We are an abysmal 118-144 since he hopped aboard. Ship him off to NYY where he will fail and will be forced to opt at seasons end which will lead him to sign a new contract elsewhere for less than 11 million a season.

2006-07-25 11:49:08
56.   dsfan

Exactly. Izturis is more valuable to the 2006 Dodgers than what you can get for him in the trade market, unless a contender's SS goes down before August. 31. Keep him, then see what you can get in the offseason. And even then, be patient.

2006-07-25 11:49:57
57.   thinkblue0
The Dodgers cannot get a "full value" trading partner for a GG-winning, young shortstop if they trade him now. And as someone pointed out on a different DT post, he was on the upswing offensively until his injury.

Izzy is basically Juan Castro or Royce Clayton. We wouldn't get a lot of value because he simply doesn't HAVE much value. It continues to amaze me how much most Dodger fans completely overrate this guy.

I would be waiting until the off-season as teams start building their '07 teams and can see penciling in Izzy as their everyday SS, and likewise the Dodgers can receive someone who helps them long-term. (The Orioles come to mind as a team that may need a SS next year.)

well, either way. Whether it's not or in the offseason I don't really care...all I know is his three mill could go to someone that could help a lot more.

Spare parts like Cruz Jr. (a good OF half-platoon) and even Saenz (DH platoon) are guys I'm looking to move now.

no way I move Saenz, too good of a hitter off the bench. But everyone else like Lofton and Cruz is fair game. I can't believe that there is no Saito talk. We could sell insanely high on this guy right now if we wanted to...too bad Ned probably doesn't see that. Lofton, Cruz, Ledee...just dump'em now and get a prospect in return.

2006-07-25 11:50:51
58.   JoeyP
Yes, clearly Drew's a loser.
Its not like he's every played on a playoff team before.
2006-07-25 11:51:11
59.   tjshere

Sorry to hear about your dad, bluetahoe. I hope he is doing well and recuperating comfortably.

I thought I posted this once already. Not sure where it went.

2006-07-25 11:51:52
60.   Jon Weisman
47 - It's truly my own fault for thinking this went without saying, but when I wrote this post this morning, I didn't have a Kansas City Royals-like team in mind. I certainly didn't mean to suggest that an obvious seller should become a buyer.

The post was meant to address the gray area where people debate buying vs. selling. It was meant to address the debate, not the non-debate.

But again, my fault.

2006-07-25 11:51:52
61.   thinkblue0
Revenge. The Dodgers used to be a 87+ win team before JD came along. We are an abysmal 118-144 since he hopped aboard.

with all due respect, the fact that you're insinuating that Drew is responsible for the Dodger team for the last two years is utterly ridiculous.

2006-07-25 11:51:56
62.   Jacob L
Jon, its so rare that I disagree with one of your top posts that I have to wonder if I'm missing something.

In my mind, the point is not only for us to think long term, but also to catch the other guys thinking short term. Do you not think that there are GMs out there thinking that Lofton, Saito, Izturis, Lucille, Saenz, Sele (need I go on?) could help them this year?

I think what you must be saying is that unloading the likes of Jose Cruz is a good idea whether you're thinking long term or short term. However, there are guys performing well for us this year (Saito being at the top of the list, followed by Sele and others) who are more valuable, or perceived to be more valuable, to someone else that actually has a chance this year.

Remember when we traded Paul Konerko (and Denys Reyes, of coures) for Jeff Shaw? Just once, I want to see us on the other side of that deal.

2006-07-25 11:53:54
63.   JoeyP
Saito would be my #1 selling piece at this point. All the talk about Broxton closing for next year, why not let Broxton close for these last two months and deal Saito. Saito's on a 1yr deal, so if he wants to come back to the Dodgers next year, he can.

But not trading a reliever that has been as dominant as Saito has, is like discovering oil and leaving it in the ground.

2006-07-25 11:54:42
64.   Jon Weisman
52 - Right. And they would have also needed him at 47-53. The record wasn't relevant - if anything, it was a distraction for too many people who thought everything with the team was great.
2006-07-25 11:54:53
65.   Bluebleeder87
great stuff on the Griddle.
2006-07-25 11:55:18
66.   LAT
Just read no. 72 from last nights game thread. Thanks so much that was great!!! Really interesting and very helpful. I will have a lot to talk about and unless I screw it up, will seem like I know a little something. I don't know if I'll get an answer but is there a specific question you want the answer to? I'll be sure to give a full report.
2006-07-25 11:56:51
67.   MartinBillingsley31

I can't believe that there is no Saito talk

I agree with everything you said in your post except this, because i look at what we have for the pen next year and don't see much, i think we need saito for the pen next year.

2006-07-25 11:58:10
68.   JoeyP
Relievers are so volatile though, and Saito is like 37.
Plus, like I mentioned before, if he wanted to come back to the Dodgers he could. He's on a 1yr deal.
2006-07-25 11:59:20
69.   Jon Weisman
62 - I think you are missing something, and I don't think you're disagreeing with me. Of everyone on your list of "Lofton, Saito, Izturis, Lucille, Saenz, Sele," I'd consider trading them regardless of the Dodgers' record. For some I'd want more return than for others, but none would be untouchable.
2006-07-25 12:00:28
70.   thinkblue0

Exactly. You might as well deal Saito while his value is sky high and if he doesn't come back, you just go out and find another Saito.

2006-07-25 12:02:13
71.   thinkblue0
I'll ask again:

can someone tell me why Harold Reynolds was handed his walking papers?

2006-07-25 12:02:28
72.   MartinBillingsley31
*Relievers are so volatile though, and Saito is like 37.
Plus, like I mentioned before, if he wanted to come back to the Dodgers he could. He's on a 1yr deal.*

Are you sure he's on a 1 year deal?
Isn't he just like any rookie, under our control for 2 more non-arbitration years, then 3 arbitration years, and wouldn't that apply to the team he was traded to?

2006-07-25 12:02:42
73.   thinkblue0
or at least link me to a site that explains the situation?
2006-07-25 12:02:46
74.   JeffC
From Inside the Dodgers:

There will be more on this to come, but I wanted to break the news here that we've re-acquired Elmer Dessens in exchange for Odalis Perez, Single-A right-handers Blake Johnson and Julio Pimentel and cash considerations.

Given that I read all your comments each day, I'm assuming most of you will like this deal, but until I get the chance to write again, feel free to debate the pros and cons here. After all, that's what this blog is all about anyway, right?

2006-07-25 12:03:56
75.   thinkblue0

Basically what we do is pull the old switcheroo on someone: We do to them what was done to us with Baez.

Saito is clearly better than Baez. But with relief pitching at such a high demand, we could probably get a legit prospect back for him.

Legit prospect for a 37 year old relief pitcher? Sign me up.

2006-07-25 12:04:16
76.   JoeyP
I dont think Japanese players are subject to arbitration rules.
Someone else would know though.

71, Deadspin believes something to do with sexual harrassment.

2006-07-25 12:05:32
77.   JoeyP
74. WOW!
Nate's going to be upset the Dodgers dealt Blake Johnson.
2006-07-25 12:05:34
78.   underdog
I think Jon's essentially right in that, if the Dodgers are offered a deal, they should consider how it benefits the team now and later. If it involves trading top prospects, it should be approached with caution, especially if it involves renting a player for two months, as opposed to one signed (or that we could sign) for beyond. Whether they're in the race or not is debatable but making stupid trades out of desperation shouldn't be. That seems to be their modus operandi right now, and I'm glad of it.

Now then, as others here have said, too, if another team is desperate for help in a particular area and the Dodgers have somebody on their current roster (who isn't a top prospect/future star) and make LA an offer involving a future Konerko type or someone who can in turn help them now without mortgaging the future, well then I'd think they'd consider it.

Personally, I'd rather see Saito stay because I still want to follow this team this year and can only imagine the bullpen without him (shudder) and think he can help next year as well. Broxton's going to be great but he's clearly not ready or yet savvy enough to assume the closer's role, imho.

2006-07-25 12:05:48
79.   Marty
71 Deadspin is saying Sexual Harrasment. ESPN is not talking.
2006-07-25 12:05:52
80.   thinkblue0

everything is now okay with the world.

I want to know what "cash considerations" means. I'm assuming it's gotta mean almost his entire contract.

If Ned got them to pay, say, 2 mill of his salary for next year then well done. Two good trades in a row...maybe Flanders is getting it now...

2006-07-25 12:05:56
81.   Paul Scott
Saito is a great one to move. GMs are undoubtably overrating him based on insane (especially for his career numbers) K/9. I completely agree on taking advantage of GMs looking to fill some BP need. Unfortunately, Midusa is very likely one of those GMs overrating him...
2006-07-25 12:06:19
82.   the OZ
71 The Griddle knows.
2006-07-25 12:06:28
83.   JJoeScott
74 - Odalis to the Royals? That's kind of like releasing him I suppose ...
2006-07-25 12:07:19
84.   bluetahoe
nevermind me. I'm working on a toxic case of the negative nellies, hateful harry's, and spiteful sal's today. It'll pass.
Thanks for the concern. He's recovering and will be good as new in no time.
2006-07-25 12:07:24
85.   Sam DC
73 No one really knows -- check the The Griddle for more.
2006-07-25 12:07:36
86.   Jacob L
69 Yeah, but the flip side is if we deal for someone to help this year, someone who's either not contractually controlled for the long term, or whose skills are likely to decline, or both, we are making a huge mistake. Likewise, if we hold on to guys who have value only because they improve our performance for this year.
2006-07-25 12:08:17
87.   JoeyP
If the Dodgers are paying most of OP's deal, and only getting back Elmer Dessens, why would the Dodgers also need to include Blake Johnson? Usually with a salary dump, if the team is paying most of the salary, you dont need to throw in a prospect too.

Pimentel isnt really a prospect anymore.
But I've heard Canuck and Nate both talk glowingly about Blake Johnson.

2006-07-25 12:08:24
88.   Marty
Odalis and 2 minor leaguers for Dessens alone? There better be some salary going with him. Where was Dessens, KC?
2006-07-25 12:08:55
89.   bluetahoe
If someone is pulling a hoax I'm pulling out a can of woop@ss. LOL....
2006-07-25 12:09:55
90.   thinkblue0

I didn't see the Johnson thing at first. If we threw him in with another prospect then they better pick up a decent portion.

If they're not paying almost any of it, then why not just DFA Perez?

2006-07-25 12:10:24
91.   Marty
I'm very happy to see OP in Kanas City. Has Dessens pitched well this year?
2006-07-25 12:10:26
92.   Dodger Blue Notes
The cash consideration part of the deal is key. There is no way you deal 2 prospects AND eat most of Perez's salary for Elmer Dessens.
2006-07-25 12:10:39
93.   D4P
The Dessens deal is unbelievably stupid. I was upset when Flanders didn't offer Elmer arbitration: I thought that was a no-brainer. Now we actually have to give up 3 players and cash to get him back?


What's next: cash and a couple prospects for Cody Ross?

2006-07-25 12:10:52
94.   underdog
74 I think just based purely on the fact that Odalis has been banished to the hinterlands that are the Kansas City Royals makes this a good and pleasurable deal in my opinion. I actually like Dessens better as a long reliever than OP. I assume (hope) Johnson was thrown in because the Royals are going to assume the majority of OP's salary?
2006-07-25 12:12:21
95.   JoeyP
I'm just surprised the Royals would be able to afford to pay anything on a deal. Thats why I think its probably the Dodgers paying most of OP's contract, and then throwing in another prospect just seems way to sweet.

DFA'ing seemed smarter, unless the Dodgers just really really wanted Elmer Dessens back.

Dessens is a good reliever, but eh I dont know. I'm sort of 'meh' about this deal, until I find out how much KC is paying.

2006-07-25 12:13:53
96.   Uncle Miltie
can someone tell me why Harold Reynolds was handed his walking papers?
He was hitting on Linda Cohn...
2006-07-25 12:15:09
97.   JJoeScott
Re: Saito

I think a team should not trade its most effective reliver (and/or closer) mid-season. It's one thing to play the kids, it's another to be simply "giving up." You want to be in a position to win close games every night of the year -- you have a responsibility to the other 24 players to keep a Saito around. I'm not saying it's the BEST decision for the talent pool, but I think it's the RIGHT one for your clubhouse's sake.

That is, if you believe in the C- word (chemistry) ...

2006-07-25 12:15:27
98.   underdog
What? Harold Reynolds was fired? Not that I care... but still.

Meanwhile, expect some sort of elaboration on Inside the Dodgers from Josh Rawitch or someone on the financial details of the trade. As I said, if the Royals are eating OPs salary, then I do understand the inclusion of minor leaguers - if not, then I don't.

2006-07-25 12:16:04
99.   regfairfield
Can't judge anything about the deal until we know what "cash considerations" are.

I'm sad to see Odalis go, since he was at least good at some point, but Grady had fairly deservedly soured on him.

2006-07-25 12:16:14
100.   the OZ
96 In fairness to Harold, it was only because Berman bet him $100 that he couldn't close the deal.
Show/Hide Comments 101-150
2006-07-25 12:16:25
101.   StolenMonkey86
1) The cash considerations will be used to sign Luke Hochevar.

2) Odalis Perez will get along well with and thus corrupt Luke Hochevar.

2006-07-25 12:16:45
102.   Blu2
16 Then I guess we have a friendly disagreement. I would take Bonds and all his baggage right now if I could get him cheaply enough (Lofton or) and if I thought it would get me to the WS; If I didn't think it would make that much difference, then I wouldn't trade. I wouldn't want him long term and I wouldn't give up a good prospect for him, but if I thought it would enable us to go all the way this year, then I would trade another piece of crap for him. If it wouldn't materially help us in the short term, I wouldn't do it. If I'm still missing your point, then I'll never get it
2006-07-25 12:16:51
103.   ToyCannon
Dessens was doing great in a setup role before his disaster at being the closer. Since being moved back into setup he was okay. Nice move by the new KC GM. In two days he has picked up two real solid pitching prospects for spare parts on the Major League roster.

Does this mean that Tomko is slated to head back into the rotation to replace Sele instead of middle relief?

2006-07-25 12:17:25
104.   Jacob L
Can you imagine the Royals eating salary? The Royals? Maybe they really, really like the prospects we included, but I guess we'll see.
2006-07-25 12:17:46
105.   LAT
At least Odalis won't have to see Shawn Green anytime soon.
2006-07-25 12:17:57
106.   thinkblue0
I think a team should not trade its most effective reliver (and/or closer) mid-season. It's one thing to play the kids, it's another to be simply "giving up." You want to be in a position to win close games every night of the year -- you have a responsibility to the other 24 players to keep a Saito around.

don't you have a responsibility to put a winning team on the field? Saito's value is sky high right now...since when do you have to keep players around for the other 24 guys? That's ridiculous. This team isn't going anywhere so you cash in on what you have while you have it. Saito is 37 years old on a one year deal...his value will NEVER get higher than it is now. So, you ditch him.

2006-07-25 12:18:13
107.   MartinBillingsley31
The cash considerations is concerning in this trade.
Please someone tell me dessens is only signed thru this season, because he's way too expensive for his ability.
Dessens is no more better than carrara.
And i'm talking about the carrara we all know not the carrara that is on a somewhat hot streak right now.

What is dessens contract, anyone know?

2006-07-25 12:18:33
108.   the OZ
99 Bingo. Although I'll say this: if the Royals indeed end up responsible for most of OP's salary, we basically just sold Blake Johnson for a couple million (maybe) dollars.
2006-07-25 12:18:34
109.   JoeyP
Anyone know which reliever is getting sent down when Tomko is activated?

I assume Carrara?
Any other guesses?

2006-07-25 12:19:18
110.   Uncle Miltie
This deal sucks. Why not just cut Odalis? Did we really need to trade one of our top pitching prospects (Johnson)? Are the Dodgers so poor that they couldn't afford to pay 3/4 of Odalis' salary and send him to the Mets?
2006-07-25 12:20:27
111.   Dodger Blue Notes
Dessens is signed thru 2007 and is will make $1.7MM.
2006-07-25 12:21:10
112.   Dodger Blue Notes
Sorry, will make $1.7MM in 2007
2006-07-25 12:21:12
113.   thinkblue0
This deal sucks. Why not just cut Odalis? Did we really need to trade one of our top pitching prospects (Johnson)? Are the Dodgers so poor that they couldn't afford to pay 3/4 of Odalis' salary and send him to the Mets?

I'm assuming that since we threw in a good prospect they're covering a pretty big chunk of the contract. If they're not, then the trade makes even less sense than all of Flanders's's's's other ones.

2006-07-25 12:21:30
114.   StolenMonkey86
Dessens is signed through 2007 at 1.7 million per year.
2006-07-25 12:21:35
115.   the OZ
Also, when is Ned going to get a good player from a good team? He keeps getting non-key players from last-place teams.

Given this strategy, is he surprised by where his own team resides in the standings?

2006-07-25 12:22:00
116.   JoeyP
You'd think if the Dbax are rich enough (and they've had financial problems) to cut Russ Ortiz, the McCourts could have done the same thing. I guess the Dodgers just really wanted Dessens back. Isnt Dessens on a 2yr deal?
2006-07-25 12:23:10
117.   MartinBillingsley31
Dessens is signed thru 2007 and is will make $1.7MM.

Then good, dessens doesn't handcuff us at all beyond this season.
But i'm still concerned with the cash considerations and blake johnson.

2006-07-25 12:23:36
118.   Uncle Miltie
I'm assuming that since we threw in a good prospect they're covering a pretty big chunk of the contract. If they're not, then the trade makes even less sense than all of Flanders's's's's other ones.
They better be picking up most his contract.

Ned is dumpster diving through the D-rays and Royals' leftovers.

2006-07-25 12:24:20
119.   bluetahoe
This is where I like to go for contract info.....

2006-07-25 12:24:57
120.   Jon Weisman
I opened a Perez thread up top.
2006-07-25 12:25:46
121.   Jon Weisman
On second thought, I'll just leave it as an update here.
2006-07-25 12:26:14
122.   Dodger Blue Notes
My guess is that the Royals are not picking up most of OP's salary. If this is the case than once again Ned has made a poor deal IMO.

Flanders really scares me.

2006-07-25 12:26:20
123.   Jon Weisman
Nah, I'll leave it open up top. Sorry!
2006-07-25 12:27:11
124.   JoeyP
Have the Royals ever picked up salary?
2006-07-25 12:27:19
125.   StolenMonkey86

The Rockies were looking at getting him for 7th inning help.

2006-07-25 12:29:32
126.   ToyCannon
Can't see the cash consideration being more then 5 million, we have OP off the books for 2007/2008 which is big in the salary war. It cost us two arms but that is the price you pay when you have to move an albatross salary like that. You guys can't seriously be upset about losing a pitcher whose k'd 73 in 109 innings in A ball. He might have a future in the bigs but it certainly wouldn't be any better then what Dessens is actually doing in the bigs. It was Steve Johnson who has been putting up the big numbers this year not Blake.
2006-07-25 12:30:12
127.   JJoeScott
don't you have a responsibility to put a winning team on the field?
We're going to disagree here. You you have a responsibility to put a winning team on the field every night, and you're not doing that if you trade your best reliever away. Especially when you're only 5.5 games out.

Saito is 37 years old on a one year deal...his value will NEVER get higher than it is now. So, you ditch him.
We'll agree here a little. If you overwhelm me with a pitcher I can use in return, I think about it. On the other hand, if he's already 37 and quite effective, one might project that he will be effective next year. Either way, the Dodgers control his contract as a rookie player.

That's ridiculous.
Karma is karma. Last time we traded away our best reliever it was Pedro Martinez ...

2006-07-25 12:31:27
128.   the OZ
125 Awesome. I hope we didn't deal Blake Johnson and cash to prevent Rockies from adding Elmer Dessens in their bullpen, but I can't say I'd be shocked if we did.
2006-07-25 12:33:11
129.   Sam DC
LAT: Glad the blurb was interesting; it was fun to bang out. I have to share one last nuggest that showed up in the paper today. Here's the setup: I mentioned that there is a big squabble about building two parking garages adjacted to the stadium. A splashy developer named Herb Miller (founder of the Mills company, e.g. Ontario Mills), proposes to build these crazy part-underground condo/retail/parking garages. The Lerners hate this plan and want simple above-ground garage structures that can be completed before Opening Day 2008. So today, in the paper we get this:

"The Lerner group has lobbied heavily against Miller's involvement, saying it fears his project is too ambitious to complete by the time the ballpark is scheduled to open in April 2008. The District's chief financial officer agrees. In private, the Lerner group refers to Miller's twin towers as 'Mothra' and 'Godzilla.'"

Too funny.

Also, I really should have given you this link -- it's Tom Boswell's profile of Ted Lerner after the team was awarded. Very interesting read, describing how he worked as an usher at old Griffith Stadium, saw Babe Ruth play, and other stuff.

I don't have any must-answer questions. The Lerners and Stan Katen get a lot of McCourt-type criticism (i.e., that this is just a busines deal and they lack real competitive fire/investment in the day to day struggle of the club). Your observations on that would be interesting.

Have fun.

2006-07-25 12:37:50
130.   Penarol1916
This is Blake Johnson, not Steve Johnson, right? Hasn't Blake Johnson been a bit of dud as a breakout prospect this year? I'm more mad that we didn't offer Elmer arbitration than anything.

Comment status: comments have been closed. Baseball Toaster is now out of business.